On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
As a double check on concepts, if you plug x=0.02856 into x/((x+(1-
x)*0.0006)) then you get 0.98. That is to say, 98% of the mass of
the volume expelled is water, and 2% steam - your starting
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 03:01 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
By whom?
Maybe you're new to the field.
Well, not exactly.
It was a joke.
Promises have been made by Pons Fleischmann first in 1989 (just watch
their
OK, gentlemen, now you have a steamless- Wasser uber alles experiment too.
Peter
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 02/21/2011 09:48 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:40
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
Excess heat is an experimental result.
Excess heat is an interpretation of experimental results.
If it is the result of an artifact, it should be possible to identify the
artifact.
Maybe, but it takes time
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
That said, let's proceed on with your defined problem where 2% of the water
is vaporized, i.e. the ejecta is 98% liquid by mass, 98% wet by mass.
|For an input flow rate of 300 cc/min = 300 mg/min,
The above
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
As a double check on concepts, if you plug x=0.02856 into
x/((x+(1-x)*0.0006)) then you get 0.98. That is to say, 98% of the mass of
the volume expelled is water, and 2%
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
I look forward to the report. This is obviously well beyond chemical if
the consumables actually are H and Ni. The energy E per H is:
E = (270kwh) /(0.4 g * Na / (1 gm/mol)) = 2.52x10^4 eV / H = 25 kEv per
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
Joshua:
A few clarifications from you would be helpful...
Jed wrote:
You do have to trust Levi, Celani and Dufour and some other people.
To which Joshua stated:
Why? They were hand-picked by Rossi.
Where
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Joshua,
Perhaps *a possibly flawed demo* would be more fair
and more technical.
It was flawed in that data to prove the steam was dry was not given, the
pump model was not provided, the hydrogen bottle was left
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
This morning I have received this from Giuseppe Levi re this test
:
Average flux in that test was 1 liter per second (measured by me many times
during the test).
1 liter per second?! Is that supposed to be per minute?
Please ask the input and output
I just have asked confirmation.
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
This morning I have received this from Giuseppe Levi re this test
:
Average flux in that test was 1 liter per second (measured by me many
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
This morning I have received this from Giuseppe Levi re this test
:
Average flux in that test was 1 liter per second (measured by me many
times during the test).
1 liter per
From: Joshua Cude
From Lomax:
This is the point, Joshua: There are hundreds of researchers
who have reported significant anomalous heat from palladium
deuteride.
The large number is actually disturbing. So many experiments,
and they never get better. They can't come up with one that
This is a resend test. I sent this yesterday, but it did not show up
in the archives. Something is going wrong with vortex-l.
On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 02/21/2011 09:48 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
On
This is a resend test to see if this shows up in the archives this time.
On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
As a double check on concepts, if you plug x=0.02856 into x/((x+(1-
x)*0.0006)) then you get 0.98. That is to say, 98% of
I have seen responses to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax in my vortex-l email,
but have seen no original email from him since 26 Jan, 2011. I just
discovered that I can see that he is posting if I go to the archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/
I checked email rejected by my
From Peter Gluck:
As I wrote in my Ego-Out blog 2011 is a very bad year for skeptics. By the
way Bob Park is ignoring the subject with great enthusiasm.
Yes indeed. More than a month has passed by and Park's conspicuous
silence on this matter strikes me personally almost as if it is a kind
of
I will ask good old Bob again- why?
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:46 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
From Peter Gluck:
As I wrote in my Ego-Out blog 2011 is a very bad year for skeptics. By
the
way Bob Park is ignoring the subject with great enthusiasm.
A source close to the recent 18-hour test of the Rossi device gave me the
following figures. These are approximations.
Flow rate: 3,000 L/h = 833 ml/s.
Input temperature: 15°C
Output temperature ~20°C
Input power from control electronics: variable, average 80 W, closer to 20 W
for 6 hours
On 02/21/2011 03:01 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
Promises have been made by Pons Fleischmann first in 1989 (just
watch their interviews on youtube, where they claim it is the ideal
energy source: clean and unlimited and simple) and then by just about
every cold fusion advocate since, including
More notes
I do not know if they used a pump, or simply let the water flow from the
tap. I have used both methods at various times, and so has Dennis Cravens,
although not for such a large flow rate.
They said they checked the flow rate several times which I assume means it
was measured manually,
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:
On 02/21/2011 03:01 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
Promises have been made by Pons Fleischmann first in 1989 (just watch
their interviews on youtube, where they claim it is the ideal energy source:
clean and unlimited
At 03:50 PM 2/21/2011, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:40:47 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
But the result that is known is
that helium is produced, and the observed energy
supports the conclusion that the primary fuel is
deuterium. unknown nuclear
At 03:31 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
I've seen what they write. Practically every review is preoccupied
with defending the reality of the field. I know you've read Storms'
abstract to his latest review, because you are acknowledged in the
paper. It's 2010, and most of it reiterates the
At 03:54 PM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
What about in the core of the sun? What mechanism operates there, if
not brute force?
All that is necessary is that the temperature be great enough that
some level of fusion occurs. It's enough that the Boltzmann tail
allows enough nuclei to have
At 02:51 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
Yes, I am aware that I do not belong here. I joined because my
critique of Levi's interpretation in the Yahoo group was
cross-posted here, and was being (ineptly) challenged. I felt I had
a good reason to come and defend it. I have joined only
Nothing new here but a decent wrap up, quoting Rothwell and Krivit:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Cold-Fusion-It-May-Not-Be-Madness-71916.h
tml
And there is a slightly contrarian but non-skeptical perspective on the
big-picture situation, as it now stands going into Spring 2011.
Like or
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Horace Heffner wrote:
I have seen responses to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax in my vortex-l email, but have
seen no original email from him since 26 Jan, 2011. I just discovered that I
can see that he is posting if I go to the archives at:
Might be eskimo.com recent crash. Or
I think I've been rcving all the postings... I've got duplicates of the last
two of Horaces' where
he reposted because he didn't see the original...
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: William Beaty [mailto:bi...@eskimo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 9:58 AM
To: Vortex-L
Subject:
See:
http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm
Let me know if you don't see this. Google Chrome does not seem to accept the
force reload HTML. As far as I know that is supposed to be:
meta http-equiv=Pragma content=no-cache
meta http-equiv=Expires content=0
Maybe that is out of date? If anyone knows
To summarize Cude's position:
He does not believe in the scientific method, replication, high signal
to noise ratios, peer review, calorimetry or the laws of thermodynamics.
To be exact, he believe that whatever pops into his own mind, or what he
says I believe, automatically overrules all of
From: Jed Rothwell
Let me know if you don't see this.
Hmm ..
Here is some additional info on the 18-hour test. I do not think I will add
this to the News section. It can wait for a paper from Levi. This may have
been reported here by Cousin Peter:
Approximately 0.4 g of hydrogen was consumed in 18 hours. This is based on
what sounds like a crude estimate
Jones Beene wrote:
*From:*Jed Rothwell
Let me know if you don't see this.
Hmm
Or, as the professor said, raise your hand if you are not here.
I meant if you don't see anything in the News section at LENR-CANR.org
about the 18-hour test.
If you see nothing, press Refresh. The
It showed fine, first pass, with Chrome.
T
Terry Blanton wrote:
It showed fine, first pass, with Chrome.
Hmm . . . Maybe I have set some parameter wrong in my copy of Chrome.
As long as most people can see it, no big deal
- Jed
At 04:31 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
If you examine what's being published, you don't find an attempt to
prove it's real, not lately, anyway. You find, in primary research,
At 05:38 PM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
His strategy might be reasonable. But a consequence of that
strategy is that I'm not going to believe that Rossi is a
demonstration of cold fusion.
That's rather
Like or not, unless another experimenter or group - more open to disclosure
of the operational details, can approximate the Rossi results of extremely
high COP at the kilowatt level, in the next few months leading up to the
promised MW demonstration, then it is going to be a frustrating period for
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
The massive rejection of cold fusion, which extended to rejection of a
graduate student thesis solely because it involved cold fusion research, and
once the news of that got around, cut off the normal supply of
On Feb 22, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Here is some additional info on the 18-hour test. I do not think I
will add this to the News section. It can wait for a paper from
Levi. This may have been reported here by Cousin Peter:
Approximately 0.4 g of hydrogen was consumed in 18
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
I don't see why. For one thing, other researchers are not responsible for
what Rossi claims, except perhaps Focardi. Levi is not a cold fusion
research. Or he wasn't before Jan. 14.
this isn't how politics works, Jed. It's how things would
Horace Heffner wrote:
The above chart is merely a very approximate visual aid to show
feasible reaction product probabilities by a rule of thumb estimate.
Copper is visualized as a most likely product.
Izzatso? So you think the reports of copper can be explained by your theory?
- Jed
Watch for the next one in Wisconsin. This one appears around 1:15 on
the time clock.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UKz3GVrHI8
T
The Larsen Windom Patent on gamma shielding: Apparatus and method
for absorption of incident gamma radiation and its conversion to
outgoing radiation at less penetrating, lower energies and
frequencies :
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?
What part of the country are you in?
Rossi will see any work at replication as an attempt to steal his pot of gold.
I wouldn't bother asking for his blessing.
Sent from my iPhone.
On Feb 22, 2011, at 16:18, Dennis den...@netmdc.com wrote:
Like or not, unless another experimenter or group
At 05:46 AM 2/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Excess heat is an experimental result.
Excess heat is an interpretation of experimental results.
Sure. So are all experimental results
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Charles Hope
lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote:
What part of the country are you in?
I think Dr. Cravens remains at the Eastern University of New Mexico.
T
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
I think Dr. Cravens remains at the Eastern University of New Mexico.
(Ruidoso is only about 80 miles from Roswell)
On Feb 22, 2011, at 2:11 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
The above chart is merely a very approximate visual aid to show
feasible reaction product probabilities by a rule of thumb
estimate. Copper is visualized as a most likely product.
Izzatso? So you think the reports of
Coincidentally, I had just started reading The Twelfth Imam and the
thought occurred - 'how would the West deal with an emergent Mahdi,'
assuming that there were valid miracles being performed over there?
Pat Robertson would no doubt be fouling his drawers, so to speak
-Original
in S. N.M. (Cloudcroft)
I would think that he considers himself covered or he would not have gone
public with a demo.
Notice that in one of his interviews he said - let others go and do the
same.
I doubt that the patent office will grant anything unless he fully discloses
his
At 08:54 AM 2/22/2011, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
From: Joshua Cude
From Lomax:
This is the point, Joshua: There are hundreds of researchers
who have reported significant anomalous heat from palladium
deuteride.
The large number is actually disturbing. So many
At 10:18 AM 2/22/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 02/21/2011 03:01 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
Promises have been made by Pons Fleischmann first in 1989 (just
watch their interviews on youtube, where they claim it is the
ideal energy source: clean and unlimited and simple) and then by
just
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
Any review of an effect that is not trivial to observe will reiterate the
evidence for the effect.
I checked the abstract for a review of high temp superconductivity (which
incidentally has 100,000 publications
Neither Joshua nor I are implacable doctrinaire skeptics.
Again, I am very impressed by the clarity and scope of Joshua Cude's
assessments. Now, it is clear that he has been monitoring cold fusion
adequately for many years.
Cold fusion has always been a moribund field, as I observed carefully
Abd Lomax is devoting much time and effort to enable anyone to prove neutron
emissions with a small, low-cost deuterium-palladium electrolysis
cell. I suggest he supply a weekly post on his progress, sharing all
data immediately real-time, including full high-resolution views of
both sides of the
57 matches
Mail list logo
